PlayStation Universe interviews Pete Hines

[Ureshi]

edit: i cant post images??? ¬¬

 

[ookami]

Ditto for Isometric, someone else brought up GTA and I don't think history views that franchise's move from top-down to 3-d as a gameplay misstep.

That glosses over an important fact, though. GTA III still had a functional ariel camera as a view option. That gameplay element was not actually taken away in the transition, you just didn't have to use it. Rockstar seemed to understand those things called 'options'. I know, just look at how everything crumbled around them and they went bankrupt from all the recources spent on those options. Well, from the attitudes of devs such as those at Bethesda, you'd think it happened like that, anyway. But it didn't. It was not viewed as a misstep and it did not remove the gameplay style. You can also put your camera in a top-down view in Fallout 3, apparently. The problem there is that it has been confirmed as non-fuctional, partly because of the way the camera is tied to aiming.

Isometric isn't even a hardsell for me. Just look up Troika's PA tech demo on youtube. I think that could have made a very nice Fallout 3.

I really wish that the perspective was the only problem with Fallout 3, I really do. But that issue is just one of many.

 

[PaladinHeart]

Let's say you like Halo. Would you like it if Halo 4 was a turn based isometric viewed game? I doubt it.

Let's say you like Civilization. Would you like it if Civilization 5 was a first person shooter?

Let's say you like Grand Theft Auto. Would you like it if GTA5 was a turn-based strategy game?

Let's say you like Deus Ex. Would you like it if Deus Ex 3 was a turn-based isometric viewed RPG?

Halo TB isometric sounds fun. Actually probably more fun than the FPS style Halo. haha

Not really a fan of Civ. There would be some interesting mechanics involved in a FPS style civ game. Sure I'd try a demo or buy it for $20 from the bargain bin if no such demo existed.

GTA5 a TB strategy game? Sounds like fun to me!

Deus Ex could only get better as an isometric TB RPG.

So I guess I could care less about the names of games. That's just me though. That's why the Fallout 3 thing doesn't bother me so much. You either like a game or you don't. Whether the IP has been whored out or not is completely irrelevant to me. If they turn something like Res Evil into a mario party style game then I'll just shrug and move on to another series. It's not the end of the world for me. If a company wants to make a crappy game and/or alienate their players then that's totally up to them.

 

[fedaykin]

So what it comes down to is that you have no respect for the opinions of fans. You just don't care what they think. Thanks for clarifying that.

 

[Texas Renegade]

no, he is saying that change can be a good thing if implemented properly.

 

[fedaykin]

Quote the part where he said that.

 

[reticulate]

Ditto for Isometric, someone else brought up GTA and I don't think history views that franchise's move from top-down to 3-d as a gameplay misstep.

That glosses over an important fact, though. GTA III still had a functional ariel camera as a view option. That gameplay element was not actually taken away in the transition, you just didn't have to use it. Rockstar seemed to understand those things called 'options'. I know, just look at how everything crumbled around them and they went bankrupt from all the recources spent on those options. Well, from the attitudes of devs such as those at Bethesda, you'd think it happened like that, anyway. But it didn't. It was not viewed as a misstep and it did not remove the gameplay style. You can also put your camera in a top-down view in Fallout 3, apparently. The problem there is that it has been confirmed as non-fuctional, partly because of the way the camera is tied to aiming.

Isometric isn't even a hardsell for me. Just look up Troika's PA tech demo on youtube. I think that could have made a very nice Fallout 3.

I really wish that the perspective was the only problem with Fallout 3, I really do. But that issue is just one of many.

It should be pointed out the aerial camera in the 3D GTA's is next to useless. Mostly because the world you're walking around in has more than two dimensions. Oh, and the camera is tied to the aiming

 

[Brother None]

I guess my point is what would you call D&D's combat then? TB with simultaneous actions?

I don't know, I haven't played D&D in a bit so I'm not sure what your're referring to. Last time I played D&D it was straight-up TB.

Though, I guess it could be correct too since the developer is designing it to be what is most fun to them regardless of who the target audience is (or changing the target audience and thus who it will be most fun for).

Bingo.

Primacy means everything gives way to fun. Including design intents of the originals. That's why it's a good word. You don't have to evolve gameplay for primacy of fun, just drop the old concept and add a new one.

 

[PaladinHeart]

I never said I have no respect for the opinions of fans. I was just saying how I would feel about said game spinoffs, since someone asked. I've played games my whole life so it doesn't really affect me when Company X doesn't make a sequel to a game I really enjoyed a lot. I just wait and look forward to whatever game might happen to fit the style I like to play, to come along... someday. =P

Now then, whether I feel it's proper or not is something else entirely. Sure these companies could make another great game, but they don't. The producers in the video game industry have put a stop to so many good series due to their insatiable greed.

Games I have really enjoyed that will never get a proper sequel:

Bioforge (look how much we were teased with Bioforge Gold)

Crusader: No Remorse
(No Regret just wasn't as fun IMO. If a company wants to alienate their players and ruin a series then the subtle changes in this sequel are a good example to follow.)

Entomorph (that popping sound when you kill something in that game is just so satisfying)

Mega Man X (I enjoyed the series up until the point where they decided to give X a squeaky little anime voice. I thought it was supposed to be a more mature iteration of the series but oh well.. Plus you can only play so many of these games before they start to get REALLY repetitive)

Ultima Underworld 1/2

Arx Fatalis (actually this is the spiritual successor to Ultima Underworld 2. Now I'm just waiting for them to get over themselves and drop this silly multiplayer crap they're working on, and make the next Arx Fatalis)

X-Com (Well TftD was alright, but just alright)

Jagged Alliance 2

Cthulhu: Dark Corners of the Earth (the next Cthulhu game they were working on did look like crap though)

*Edit 3: Final Fantasy Tactics, Oddworld, Fallout Tactics, Baldur's Gate 1/2, Temple of Elemental Evil, Pool of Radiance: Ruins of Myth Drannor, Planescape: Torment, etc..

Fallout (Fallout 3 may not be a proper sequel. To me, it's just another game. It's to Fallout 2 what Dark Messiah is to Ultima Underworld 2... if Dark Messiah had been named Ultima Underworld 3. An ultimately cheesy and unnecessary whoring of a game series, but nevertheless I'll play and enjoy Fallout 3 just as much as I would enjoy an Ultima Underworld 3 that played more like an actiony throw-stuff-to-kill-things kinda game)

Edit: Actually that's jumping to conclusions. If Fallout 3 only consists of what we've seen in the demos then it looks to be a $5 bargain bin title. However, if that's just 5% of the game then that's OK (with me). I like RPG's. I like Bethesda's RPG's. If Fallout 3 were only as good as Oblivion then I'm okay with that, but I'm hopeful that they will have improved a lot due to criticism of their previous game. I know it's not a game for Fallout fans (and thus the title makes no sense) but I'm hopeful that they'll release a CS for the game and there will be lots of interesting user created content for Fallout 3.

I just hope that by them being stuck with the Fallout name that it will help them make a better RPG than if they had made.. oh.. Apocalos Scrolls 1: Vault 101. I think the Fallout franchise is a good thing for Bethesda, as I can only imagine how cheesy their own post apocalypse IP would have been.

Edit 2: Judging from the various tidbits of news on new isometric style RPGs in NMA news, there will be a fair number of spiritual successors to Fallout. Let's just hope these companies can all stay afloat and, after their desired initial success, don't get carried away and make an actiony rpg where you throw-boxes-and-stuff-to-kill-enemies.

* Edit 3: Thankfully nobody has replied before I could do edits 1 and 2. Oh, and now to edit in some more titles before anyone notices.

Edit 4: I would be more than happy to see something like Ultima Underworld 3 be purchased by a game by Blizzard and be made into a hack & slash rather than die in obscurity. HOWEVER, I can understand your lament and sorrow if you're not a fan, AT ALL, of first person RPG's and if you absolutely hated Stalker, Oblivion, Morrowind, and any other first person RPG that's ever been made. As for myself, I'm happy to see a first person post apocalypse RPG. I've still yet to play Stalker, but that's only because Wal-Mart hasn't stocked any $20 versions of the game yet. x]

 

[Brother None]

I never said I have no respect for the opinions of fans. I was just saying how I would feel about said game spinoffs, since someone asked. I've played games my whole life so it doesn't really affect me when Company X doesn't make a sequel to a game I really enjoyed a lot. I just wait and look forward to whatever game might happen to fit the style I like to play, to come along... someday.

Makes sense. But I don't think you're really living our position here: nobody is making games like Fallout anymore. Fallout stood as one of the last attempts at a true pen and paper emulating RPG. Now this last attempt is being felled like so many trees and turned to another genre.

Spin-offs? Fine. I don't mind spin-offs as long as they treat the genre right. Tactics could've been fine if it had been a better game and treated the setting better. FOOL might be great, who knows. Spin-offs be spin-offs. But we're talking a spin-off that claims to be a sequel here.

That's why it's extra-painful. It's like another blow to the neck of pen and paper RPGs, even though in Europe some people are trying to climb back out of the hole and some indies are doing the same, but Fallout 3's existence and the way it is covered aren't helping.

 

[PaladinHeart]

Yeah. "Fallout 3" is a bad choice. Fallout: Vault 101 = better choice.

Even if they wanted to change the name now though, could they? Considering all the publicity the game has been through under the guise of Fallout 3, I believe it would be bad publicity for them to change the name now...

OR it could be good publicity.

"In honor of the Fallout franchise Bethesda has respectfully decided to change the name of Fallout 3 to Fallout: Vault 101 (or something else). The decision was made mostly out of respect to the fans of the original games, since the new iteration is a radical departure from the true pen and paper emulating-ness of the original game"

Due to a lack of better words I got a little cheesy there. >.>
But anyway, I blame greedy producers for the lack of isometric turn based RPG's nowadays. It's a niche market and they're generally not interested in helping out the development companies unless there's $$$$$$ millions involved.

The Oddworld guys quit making games because the production companies are so greedy that they continually either refuse to produce the games, or agree only to do so if they get ownership of the IP in said game. (I did see something about Maxis working on a new Oddworld.. I gotta read up on that)

It's a fairly sad state of affairs. I'm hopeful that Bethesda will improve their overall design. Perhaps even improving their future Elder Scrolls games. It's funny, they have succeeded due to their massive worlds and content, but they got a little lazy with Oblivion and people really started to notice that it's all a very, VERY repetitive design... >.< The dungeons were the worst (most obvious) example.

 

[Alphadrop]

I call it "Fallout East"

They could say Fallout 3 is only a working title, that would give them some leverage to change it.

 

[Brother None]

Even if they wanted to change the name now though, could they?

Now? No. All the promotional material is up, Fallout 3 is the known name, probably the box design is finalized and maybe even printed.

No way to change it now.

But anyway, I blame greedy producers for the lack of isometric turn based RPG's nowadays. It's a niche market and they're generally not interested in helping out the development companies unless there's $$$$$$ millions involved.

The industry is in a bit of a transitional stage, producing almost exclusively expensive AAA tiltes. Something like 3 out of every 4 or 4 out of every 5 flops and fails to return on the investment, but the one that does recoups the losses. It's not a very smart model, but the high production costs - especially on consoles - just makes it that way.

It'll get better inevitably as production costs tweak down again, at least for PC. Consoles are probably a lost cause. B-scale products are already economically viable (and have always been, see Fallout or Torment), they're just not very attractive. They will be, tho'

 

[Texas Renegade]

BN--This is an argument I have not been able to get someone to explain to me for like 15 years.

Why is it harder and more expensive to design for a console? I would think it would be cheaper and easier because you don't have to take into account different system specs.

 

[Brother None]

Why is it harder and more expensive to design for a console? I would think it would be cheaper and easier because you don't have to take into account different system specs.

Manufacturer-incited overhead:
- for every 50 bucks, Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo take - what - 10 bucks? If you ever wondered why they're so passionate about the console war, that's it, selling consoles usually doesn't make them any money (monstrous losses for Sony currently), but the games sold on the consoles do. Considering your standard overhead already means you make only 20-25 bucks per game sold at full-price, that's a pretty big hit on the profit margin.
- if you develop for a console, you will have to use the devkits and devconsoles that only the console manufacturer can sell you, though I know not at what prices

Minimum console requirements:
This is something that's somewhat being addressed: unlike PCs, where you can just make a lo-end game and sell it online at your own convenience - even make a flash game and just get paid via ad revenue (both NewGrounds and ArmorGames have become fair-sized businesses this way). Traditionally, there never was a duplicate of this on consoles. Now there is (Xbox Live Arcade), which means that now you can make smaller games and sell them on consoles (Braid, Castle Crashers), but the problem of the cut the console manufacturer takes remains, not to mention the manufacturer determines your price, when you sell and how you sell (the price of Braid was determined by Microsoft, not by Blow).

So the difference is smaller now but it's still there, both the overhead and the unfriendliness towards smaller games make the consoles a lot less attractive, if not down-right impossible for small-budget games: moreso, the only small-budget games that have a good shot at doing consoles (and will be accepted by developers) are the casual titles; Braid, PopCap games, Puzzle Quest, that kind of stuff. Fun, innovative, casual games. Niche titles are unacceptable, I doubt M/S/N would even let you publish them on their console (their call, at the end of the day).

 

[Texas Renegade]

thanks.

 

[Gauss Pistol]

Actually the standard licensing fee is $7 out of a sixty dollar game, and the dev kits are usually leased to a developer who signs a licensing agreement for next to nothing.

While the license is a portion of the console overhead a bigger money sink is actually learning the architecture you are programing on. However in the most recent gen there has become a split between the ps3's powerful but cumbersome to program cell architecture, and the 360's PC like and mind you PC dev friendly setup.

Yet still the most costly part of making a console game is its marketing stemming from the belief that every game must be a AAA blockbuster even when its a steaming pile (Assassin's Creed).

 

[Brother None]

Actually the standard licensing fee is $7 out of a sixty dollar game.

Cheers.

That is a heftier amount than it looks, tho'.

While the license is a portion of the console overhead a bigger money sink is actually learning the architecture you are programing on.

To some extent that applies to PC as well, tho'

Yet still the most costly part of making a console game is its marketing stemming from the belief that every game must be a AAA blockbuster even when its a steaming pile (Assassin's Creed).

And this definitely applies to PC as well. That's just the publisher mindset, not a problem inherent of or causes by consoles.

 

[Gauss Pistol]

hey Brother None mind if i ask what the mini-todd under you're name is about.

Also the $7 fee gives them an excuse to charge $10 more than PC making them a cool 3 bucks extra a game, gotta love guys in suits

 

[ookami]

It should be pointed out the aerial camera in the 3D GTA's is next to useless.

Worked quite fine for me in most situations. I'll admit that it's not a 100% thing, but it wasn't removed and you're going overboard in declaring it useless.

The philosophy should still be 'improve rather than remove'. Bethesda takes the opposite route. The lazy route.

Yeah. "Fallout 3" is a bad choice. Fallout: Vault 101 = better choice.

I prefer Fallout: Capital Wasteland. Though my snarky side does suggest FPSallout.

Even if they wanted to change the name now though, could they? Considering all the publicity the game has been through under the guise of Fallout 3, I believe it would be bad publicity for them to change the name now...

I don't recall anyone capable of blowing their own nose getting too confused about STALKER's slight name change. I seriously doubt it would be any different for Fallout 3. Can't be 100% sure, though, considering the market they seem to be going after.